16
$\begingroup$

While studying the Crystal Field Theory I was told $\mathrm{Dq}$ is a unit, related to the unit $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}$ by the relation $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}} = 10\ \mathrm{Dq}$. But aren't $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}$ and $\mathrm{Dq}$ variables, not units? The unit is of energy, such as $\mathrm{eV}$ or Joules, these are symbols to represent a particular value of energy, which could be anything. So what do we mean when we say $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}= 10\ \mathrm{Dq}$? What exactly is $\mathrm{Dq}$ (I haven't been able to find this in any of my textbooks, they just either state this relation, or not at all) and are they actually units of energy?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Dq was derived for quantum mechanic description of the electrostatic model of crystalline fields and is connected to the radial electron density of the d-electrons, the charge of the metal and the distance of ligands and metal. The term Dq is the product of two terms D and q and is called Differential of quanta implying the energy. The word D has been coined from D State (L=2 ) $\endgroup$ – user25554 Feb 7 '16 at 16:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ We should point out that Dq is D times q, and q is not a subscript.... $\endgroup$ – Greg Feb 9 '16 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ Dq is differential of quanta and is the ligand field splitting parameter. $\endgroup$ – Rehmat Nov 18 '17 at 17:09
6
$\begingroup$

Though I don't think I can provide a full answer, I did see this in a lecture series. $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}$ is the ligand field splitting and it is a measure for the strong or weak field that the ligands of a complex create. Depending on the ligands the energy levels of, for example octahedral iron complexes (below), are closer to each other in a low field and farther apart for a higher field. This is dependant on $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}$. This is also an energy difference and the units are in joules or electron volts. See the picture below. You might also want to look up Tanabe-Sugano Diagrams.

I was told (sorry, no proper reference) that the expression $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}= \pu{10Dq}$ comes from quantum mechanics. The reason that this term is simply stated instead of defined, lies in the origin of CFT. The theory was largely empirical and thus $\Delta_{\mathrm{O}}$ was used. This difference in energy levels could also be described in quantum systems and is called $\pu{Dq}$ after its quantum number. The difference between the levels appeared to be $\pu{10Dq}$.

I hope this is not a gross oversimplification, but a rather helpful one!

Energy levels of an octahedral system

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

The origin of the usage of $\pu{Dq}$ is discussed elsewhere and is out of scope for this question; but I can tell you that it is indeed a relative unit.

When looking at complexes without knowing their specific electronic structure and specific energy levels, the $\mathrm{Dq}$-expression is a simple way of comparing the relative electron stabilisations. The idea is that the entire field split is given as $10~\mathrm{Dq}$ and that a hypothetical zero-level is introduced such that one electron in each orbital would give an overall stabilisation of $0~\mathrm{Dq}$. So in the case of a $\mathrm{d^3}$ complex, the ‘stabilisation’ would be $-18~\mathrm{Dq}$.

The convention has a number of flaws:

  • As noted, the overall energy can differ greatly. No two complexes will have exactly the same value for $10~\mathrm{Dq}$.

  • The value of $10~\mathrm{Dq}$ even depends strongly on the geometry: octahedral complexes have a much larger value of $10~\mathrm{Dq}$ than tetrahedral ones:

$$4.44~\mathrm{Dq}(\text{oct}) \approx 10~\mathrm{Dq}(\text{tet})$$

  • The notation does not extend well to complexes in geometries other than octahedral or tetrahedral. For Jahn-Teller distorted or square-planar complexes, the definition of $10~\mathrm{Dq}$ becomes unclear and less useful. It is often given as the energy difference corresponding to the highest-wavelength electronic absorption.

So overall, while it is helpful to use it at a basic level, it outlives its usefulness quickly due to being, as you said, relative.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.